Voluntary Agreements: First Choice or Escape Strategy?-Invasive Alien Species as a Case

1 Introduction In the German policy on biological diversity, voluntary agreements play a role within a policy mix of different types of instruments. In this policy the framework conditions for decision making are shaped by the interplay of several policy sectors resulting from the development of the field. The history of a comprehensive biodiversity policy is still young, formally starting in 1992 with the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The instruments of this new policy field were developed within the framework of already existing policies. This occurred not only in one single policy sector, but rather, biodiversity policy developed across different policies, building upon their established procedures and instruments. Hence, it is a characteristic of this policy field to be highly cross-sectoral. Originally placed within the nature conservation sector, biodiversity reaches far beyond this traditional policy field, to include many other sectors. Additionally, it focuses not only on protection, but also on the sustainable use of the biodiversity and on benefit sharing. Hence the coordination of sector policies is a crucial topic in this policy field (Hubo, Krott 2010 a). Within the coordination processes the different policy sectors concerned due to their competences and interests have an impact on the choice of instruments. Against this background the question arises as to the extent to which the choice of instruments is affected by the involvement of several policy sectors with their various aims and interests. Are voluntary agreements chosen because the decision-makers in charge believe that they are adequate, or are there other, namely sector-related, incentives or obstacles that explain the choice? We want to explore this question by examining the example of invasive species. This issue has high priority in international biodiversity policy because, in a global perspective, invasive species are recognised as one of the most important threats to biological diversity. They are currently on the political agenda of the European Commission, which is preparing a dedicated legislative instrument on invasive species (EC 2011, p. 13). Many political sectors are involved with this problem, making the issue particularly suitable as a case study. The decision making in this young and evolving field is not yet well known; that is why we choose an explorative approach that allows to develop new concepts and to find unknown interrelations. Before developing the study's analytical framework (chapter 3) to be applied in chapter 4, let us first introduce the biodiversity policy issue of invasive species, including a short overview of the problem field and the relevant policy instruments. 2 The biodiversity policy issue of invasive species 2.1 The problem field Biological invasions caused by human activities are recognised as one of the most important threats to biodiversity in the world. The problem concerns not only the old immigration countries like the USA, Canada, or Australia, where the problem had its starting point, caused by immigration from Europe bringing plants and animals from their home regions to the new areas. Today Europe is also strongly concerned. The problem here is driven mainly by the globalisation of markets, and it is expected to increase in the future, strengthened by increasing trade, tourism and climate change (EEA 2012). According to the CBD, species are called alien if they are introduced to environments where they do not occur naturally. In cases where they establish themselves in the new habitat and threaten natural species or change landscapes they are invasive. Besides harming native biodiversity, they can also have a negative impact on human health and can cause great economic damage (EEA 2012). In Germany more than 800 species are known to be established, but only few have become invasive, threatening the local biodiversity (Kowarik 2010). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.